Reflections by young water researchers from the Global South
Neha Khandekar, Indika Arulingam, Deepa Joshi, Upandha Udalagama, Shreya Chakraborty, Kausik Ghosh, Paula Pacheco
There is now, perhaps as never before, a growing consensus on the need for transformative change in water and climate science. As early career water researchers engaged in recent dialogues on water security, we wonder if the call for transformative change is rhetorical, or if – finally – we are witnessing genuine commitment to a truly transformative agenda. We believe that to be genuinely transformative, this agenda requires an inclusive, enabling, plural, and transdisciplinary (re)revisioning of water science, policy, and practice. At root, there are some hard choices to be made – including urgently confronting some very real colonial legacies.
What do we mean when we speak about decolonizing this space and, above all, why is this so important? At its core, decolonized water science recognizes that water management, governance, and knowledge systems – whether dominant technocentric water science or traditional knowledge and practices – are not value-neutral. Indeed, recognizing the diverse agendas and power hierarchies that determine how water is seen, understood and managed is critical. Despite ample evidence revealing the intricate, uneven, and path-dependent nature of policy and practice agendas, water scientists succumb to seductive narratives that embrace simplistic worldviews, normative assertions, and disciplinary "solutions", an allure that comes at the cost of heightened social and environmental risks (Shrestha et al., 2019). A decolonized water agenda would acknowledge that purely technological and managerial processes and decisions (Swnygedouw, 2010), particularly those made in elite, masculine settings or without any clear ideological basis (such as pitting markets and individualism against the welfare state and public institutions [Castree, 2011]), are problematic. Water problems require a different scientific vision, one that incorporates the multiplicities of locational and context-specific knowledge, a greater range of political possibilities – including beyond the dominant discourses of global institutions – and that can arrive at more critical analysis and inclusive dissensus (Swnygedouw, 2010).
As young researchers, we notice a lack of dissensus and diversity of viewpoints in discussions about water. Colonial legacies continue to shape much of our current geographic landscapes in the Global South. This is manifested in the construction of dams, canalisation, embankments, flood control structures, and metropolitan water supplies and their sources, which ignore the day-to-day realities of how human interactions with water have always been political (Hettiarachchi et al., 2019). These legacies have resulted in inherited conflicts akin to diseases (Khandekar and Srinivasan, 2021) that are difficult to shake off and are growing in severity. This is driven by the politicisation of water 'resource' sharing due to partitioning in colonial times and scientifically unreliable sources of datasets (Chokkakula, 2012; D'Souza, 2008). They also continue to propagate modes of knowledge production and imaginaries that treat water as merely an economic good, to be controlled, commodified, partitioned, and traded. The engagement of specialists stemming from engineering and economics backgrounds in planning and policymaking ignores the politics of day-to-day realities in which historians and social scientists are especially interested.
We had hoped that the 2023 UN Water Conference might provide an opportunity for a system 'reset'. While the Conference saw representatives from the Global South in abundance, there was little if any real questioning of contemporary water agendas and mandates. It was as if, 46 years after the First Water Conference in Mar Del Plata in 1977, very little had been learnt, and perhaps much had been forgotten (see the post on this Forum).
Our focus here is not yet another fuzzy narrative on colonial legacies in water science, policy, and practice. From a vantage point of the excluded, including in events like the UN Water Conference, we recognize that a decolonized water approach is easier said than done. As young water researchers based in the Global South experiencing everyday exclusions in water governance and decision-making, we propose the following first steps towards decolonizing water science:
- First, recognise that the current hegemonic knowledge systems,
ontologies and epistemologies are underpinned by technocratic,
capitalist, extractivist, and patriarchal systems. These dominant knowledge forms ultimately shape the agendas of research, policy and planning, multilateral financing institutions, politics and the media with outdated tropes and racist-exploitative imagery and understandings. This further disempowers the poorest and most vulnerable communities. Engagement with critical social sciences, humanities and history is necessary to unpack these power hierarchies in existing modes of knowledge production.
We advocate against the dominance of technocratic knowledge forms and rhetorical, tokenistic, or unequal forms of partnerships, which to us indicate the continued presence of a colonial culture. Framings, interpretations, and methods of doing water science need to emerge from, be shaped by, and ultimately serve the needs of marginalised communities from the Global South. - Second, call out the everyday coloniality in existing water institutions. The power hierarchies drive the disparities manifest in terms of who gets a seat at the table, agenda setting, leadership roles, salaries, etc. between collaborators of the global north and global south. Our experience has been that we must fit into this system or be cast aside (and out). The few professionals and researchers from the Global South who make it within these spaces are privileged and educated in Western paradigms and knowledge systems. Through language, social capital, and embodiment, they are able to navigate these spaces. The rest end up becoming either token authors or prey to helicopter research.
We propose that more global south researchers, field partners and members of the underrepresented communities become the first authors, project Principal Investigators and project leaders in large collaborative teams. To avoid Global North researchers continuing to propagate colonial legacies through field research focus on African, Asian, or Latin American landscapes, it is time that Global South researchers study systems in the Global North.
A good example of how providing agency to the under-represented and using scientific solutions can make strides in creating a more inclusive water policy can be seen in Bolivia. There, research, advocacy by activists, social movements at the grassroots, and representation from the indigenous communities in the country's leadership led to the promulgation of a water law that declared "Water as a fundamental right for life" not only for humans but for all living beings. The new law forbids the privatization of water, recognises traditional water rights, and guarantees access to water for irrigation for Indigenous and farming communities (Alurralde, 2010). - Third, embrace newer forms of practice rooted in care, reflexivity and empathy that can save us young professionals being buried under the current institutional regime. Fundamental to "resetting" the "same-old same old" is recognizing
the need for political dissensus, being always aware of addressing the
biases ingrained in colonial legacies – and not seeking to bury them
under the proverbial carpet. We ask for more funding and mentorship support for Youth platforms across the Global South that are all about nurturing such safe spaces and inculcating alternative values in the current scheme of practice.
Our vision overall is to help birth a truly transdisciplinary water knowledge and community of practice rooted in lived experiences that embody multiple values and knowledge forms, all coming together to create a truly decolonized future for water science.
Neha Khandekar is a researcher and policy advisor on the subject matter of water, agriculture, climate change, and inclusion. https://www.linkedin.com/in/nehajankikhandekar/
Indika Arulingam works with the Water Growth and Inclusion Program at the International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Her research focuses on issues of social equity in water, land and food resources management. https://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/about/staff-list/indika-arulingam/
Deepa Joshi is the Gender, Youth and Inclusion Lead Specialist at the International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, https://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/about/staff-list/deepa-joshi/
Upandha Udalagama is working as a consultant at the International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Her work at IWMI ranges from water and growth to the complexities of gender and its intersections with socioeconomic status.
Shreya Chakraborty works as a researcher on climate change, policy and adaptation at the International Water Management Institute, New Delhi https://www.linkedin.com/in/shreya-chakraborty-24a2b337/
Kausik Ghosh is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Geography at Vidyasagar University, West Bengal, India. His research and teaching involve river basin hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, sedimentary processes, ecosystem services and transboundary water conflicts. http://faculty.vidyasagar.ac.in/Faculties/Profile?fac_u_id=Fac-CHEM-165
Paula L. Pacheco Mollinedo is the former Director of the Bolivian NGO Agua Sustentable. Sheis currently doing a PhD with IRD-France. She has taken the voices of indigenous to several global dialogue processes such as COPs, World Water Forums, World Water Congress, and others.
References
Shrestha, G., Joshi, D. and Clément, F. (2019). Masculinities and hydropower in India: A feminist political ecology perspective. The Commons Journal, 13(1), p.130-152.DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.920
Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever? Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409358728
Castree, N. (2011), Neoliberalism and the Biophysical Environment 3: Putting theory into practice. Geography Compass, 5: 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00406.x
Hettiarachchi, M., Morrison, T. H., & McAlpine, C. (2019). Power, politics and policy in the appropriation of urban wetlands: the critical case of Sri Lanka. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(4), 729-746.
Khandekar, N. and Srinivasan, V. (2021). Dispute resolution in the Cauvery Basin, India. Handbook of Catchment Management 2e (eds R. Ferrier and A. Jenkins). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119531241.ch22
D' Souza, R. (2008). Framing India's hydraulic crisis: The politics of the modern large fam, Monthly Review 3: 60. https://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/framing-indias-hydraulic-crisis-the-politics-of-the-modern-large-dam/
Chokkakula, S (2012). Disputes, (de)politicization and democracy: Interstate water disputes in India, RULNR Working Paper No.13, CESS Working Paper No.108. https://cprindia.org/workingpapers/disputes-depoliticization-and-democracy-interstate-water-disputes-in-india/
Alurralde, J. C. (2010). After the water wars: The search for common ground. Comisión para la Gestión Integral del Agua en Bolivia. https://idrc-crdi.ca/en/research-in-action/after-water-wars-search-common-ground
Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge Alan Nicol, Strategic Program Director – Water, Growth and Inclusion at the International Water Management Institute, Ethiopia for his time in engaging with our thoughts and providing valuable comments and feedback for the article.
Credit: Graphics by IYWN